Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elena Kagan As the Next Earl Warren

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:26 PM
Original message
Elena Kagan As the Next Earl Warren
Edited on Sun May-09-10 09:32 PM by babylonsister
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-r-monk-jd/elana-kagan-as-the-next-e_b_538130.html


Linda R. Monk, J.D., Constitutional scholar, Author of "The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution"

Elena Kagan As the Next Earl Warren

Posted: April 14, 2010 06:17 PM


Why progressives aren't cheering for Solicitor General Elena Kagan as President Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. She's got just the personality, intelligence, and experience to shape the Court for decades, at a time when the legislative agenda of the president is going to face the most hostile justices since FDR's court-packing days. Indeed, Kagan has the potential to become another Earl Warren in her ability to unite the Court in seminal decisions on divisive social issues.

Yet influential blogger Glenn Greenwald -- who courageously rallied lawyers opposing torture -- has made preventing the nomination of Kagan his personal mission. He bases his attack on what he believes Kagan should have done rather than what she actually has done. The core of his complaint is that Kagan did not speak out louder against the Bush (and now Obama) policies on waging war against terrorists, rather than coddling conservatives on the faculty at Harvard Law School, where Kagan was dean from 2003 to 2009. She now serves as the first female solicitor general of the United States, a traditional stepping stone for Supreme Court nominees.

But it's precisely her experience at Harvard that most qualifies her for the current Supreme Court vacancy. Surely a woman who can tame the fierce passions of warring conservative and liberal factions at Harvard Law can help mold a cohesive majority at the Supreme Court -- something even Justice John Paul Stevens was rarely able to do. Part of this, as Stevens noted, is because the Court has veered rightward, but it is also because the justices as a whole have not remembered their own institutional interest in restrained decisions. At Harvard, Kagan reminded the combatants that they were ultimately taking the school down with them. She built a reputation as an honest broker who identified common interests and advanced the ball.

Like Harvard, the Supreme Court has been damaged as an institution by perpetually dissolving into warring camps. A string of 5-4 decisions on either side of an issue merely prolongs the dispute and creates more work for lawyers and political fundraisers. How can Americans have any hope that the Constitution actually stands for something if its interpretation constantly varies with the election results?

This is not the president's first appointment, nor likely his last. But it is the appointment that could most influence the success of his health care initiative, which is about to go whizz-bang from the states to the Supreme Court. It's exactly for this kind of case that some conservatives on the Court have been sharpening their teeth, for decades. They want to reverse constitutional law a century and return to an era when state and federal legislation protecting health and workers rights was uniformly struck down as unconstitutional. As reported by Jeffrey Rosen in a 2005 article for the New York Times magazine, there is a "Constitution in exile" movement that aims to dismantle the regulatory state and return to the Social Darwinism embodied in the Court's 1905 decision, Lochner v. New York, which struck down maximum working hours for bakers.


more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-r-monk-jd/elana-kagan-as-the-next-e_b_538130.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Earl Warren? ROFL
More like Clement Hanysworth, completely unsuitable for such important position. I am not willing to bet our reproductive rights on a zero-record like Kagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You don't trust her position on reproductive rights?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I am not willing to bet our reproductive rights on a zero-record like Kagan.
If you are privy to Kagan's views on Roe, or habeas corpus, please share them with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. If Obama chose her, I'm MORE than confident she's pro-choice and pro-every other women's rights.
And I have NO reason to trust a constant critic's opinion like yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Obama also chose to open up the seashore for more oil drilling
What a wonderful decision that turned out to be!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. The President made a policy annoucement that
would not have resulted in any drilling for nearly a decade. People make it sound like his announcement resulted in BP's current drilling operation.

Ludicrous.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. It was a reckless decision because he chose to trust in Big Oil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
50. and was only a small part of a comprehensive energy strategy
and he probably put it in there to gain the support of Mary Landrieu, who is a big oil person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Obama's decision had NOTHING to do with the oil spill in the Gulf.
"What a wonderful decision that turned out to be!" Keep trying to smear Obama. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
51. next the 6%ers will blame
the Wright Brothers for 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
42. God grief, are we now in the "dear leader knows best" stage of devolution
Edited on Mon May-10-10 01:24 AM by liberation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #42
54. +1
"God, fate, destiny and providence" would have it no other way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #42
58. I guess you'd rather trust the judgement of a poster on a message board than
the Dem. president who has made his qualifications for a SC pick clear-and they're not conservative positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. These are interesting times.
The reactions are going to make for good theater.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Agree. I may slip out and get some popcorn for the entire week.
And some Pepsi, too, dammit.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. pepsi and popcorn? that's a sodium sundae - don't forget the butter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. True. "Don't forget the butter!" LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Don't forget the corn chips and salsa ;) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. The usual suspects are already freaking out in typical "exploding head" fashion.
Here and on twitter. Once again, it's time to separate the reasonables from the hystericals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. So now it's considered "hysterical"
to be opposed to a Democratic President pushing an already dangerously unbalanced court even further to the right? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. How does anyone know what direction the court will go should
Kagan be confirmed? Let me guess...no one does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Does Justice Stevens believe in the "unitary executive" horseshit?
Does he believe in "indefinite detention" without being charged with a crime?

I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. Does Kagan?
The jury is still out on that, so to speak.

You do realize that one could have a different legal perspective based on whether he/she is a government lawyer working for the executive branch versus serving as a justice on the SCOTUS, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. Give us some proof of your ridiculous assertions, please. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiphopnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
56. but that is not a sound rational for support of her nomination
indeed, it's sound rational for opposition to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. No, it is hysterical to react in an over-the-top way
that is based in emotion and not facts.

And before you reply, no, not EVERYONE who has concerns about her fits that bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. Thanks.
That's exactly what I meant. Of course, I did not broad-brush all who criticize Kagan as being hysterical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiphopnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
57. lack of facts is precisely the rational for opposition of the nomination
and I don't see anyone being over-the-top about it. That we're being asked to use only emotion to support this nom is what's most troubling. It makes tensions flare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. I do, just like the people who were against Sonia Sotomayor because "she's too fat."
You cannot both say "there is a lack of facts/record/paper trail" AND say "she is too right-wing."

There ARE facts, and the facts suggest that she will be a liberal on the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiphopnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Agree that there's cognitive dissonance there.
I never said that and disavow myself from anyone in the thread that did. What I'm saying is that the lack of substantial progressive legal credentials (e.g., a body of legal opinions) is also not sufficient to say which way she'll move the court, right or left. That we're being asked by our president to "trust him," basically, and to go on her impressive legal career heretofor to replace the head of the liberal wing of the court is...hard to swallow, shall we say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Well I suppose I can say this
We do already have something to go on and that is that he's already appointed a justice. I liked (like) Sotomayor and that is why I can trust him on this one. Maybe some others here didn't like her appointment and if so, I can understand them not giving that benefit of the doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. Nope. Being hysterical is being hysterical.
But you doth protest too much. Did you just out yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. JD. didn't you yourself say she was "disqualified" the other day for being connected to GS?
Edited on Sun May-09-10 10:08 PM by ruggerson
I remember having to calm you down a bit ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Touche.
Thanks for pointing that out ... and I haven't forgotten.

Guilty as charged. Kagan's ties to GS trouble me and should have disqualified her prima facie, in my opinion. I'll be listening carefully and scrutinizing along the way. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
44. Indeed...
... which is why you started with an speculative attack on those who may disagree with this decision by Obama. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
43. I find your projection exercise hilarious...
Edited on Mon May-10-10 01:27 AM by liberation
... you having the official white house seal in your signature and all.

LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Interesting perspective. If she is indeed the choice we shall see if it
turns out to have been inspired or a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R. Obama picked her to be a counter to Roberts-and I'm sure OBAMA knows more about her
than posters HERE do. I trust him to make a strong pick and so I believe she will pleasantly surprise the critics here. The Repubs. are already planning on grilling her on her opposition to military recruiters on college campuses due to the DADT policy. There's no way she's a conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. do progressives like anything about Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Why should they? He's their whipping Boy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
36. Probably about as much as Obama likes anything progressive. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #46
53. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
45. I think the pertinent question would be: Does Obama like anything about progressives?
So far it seems like not a whole lot...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. Gotta love the underlying irony!
Edited on Sun May-09-10 10:05 PM by depakid
"...the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." ~Dwight Eisenhower.

... in one of those wonderful twists of politics, the newly inaugurated President Dwight D. Eisenhower made good on a private pledge that he never dreamed he'd have to keep. During the Republican Convention the summer before, Ike had managed to get the support of a key rival, Gov. Earl Warren of California. A quid for the quo, it seems, was that Warren was promised the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.

Trouble was, neither Eisenhower nor anybody else expected that slot to be the Chief Justice's. Thus, when Fred Vinson died suddenly on Sept. 8, 1953, the President dispatched his Attorney General to California, where Governor Warren had just returned from a hunting trip. Did the Governor think that Eisenhower's deal included an offer of the Chief Justiceship, which the President clearly did not have in mind? Warren's response to the Attorney General was short: ''The first opening.''

And so it was that Earl Warren was nominated (and confirmed without opposition) to be the 13th Chief Justice of the United States -a decision Eisenhower would later lament as the biggest mistake of his Presidency.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/24/arts/judging-why-earl-warren-was-hailed-as-super-chief.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
25. The more I hear and read about her, the happier I am about her. Conservative groups are already
attacking her on her opposition to military recruiters on college campuses, and due to the policy of DADT! That's sending red flags all OVER the conservative side and I love it. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. And yet I just read on DU she's a "neo-con"
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Of course you read it on DU...
sadly, there ARE a few haters who rival the teabaggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. I frankly find people in DU who pull crap out of their ass to be more in line with the teabaggers..
Maybe you can tell us why she worked so hard to stop the supreme court from hearing the case on the outing of Valerie Plame?

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-1043.resp.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. Kagan Reply Brief Urging Supreme Court Not Hear Siegelman Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing. Kagan used technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors.

Since the 2006 convictions DoJ has withstood complaints that include: political prosecution orchestrated by Rove , judge-shopping , jury tampering , lying about Canary's recusal , firing a DoJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DoJ tried to blackmail its central witness.

Kagan's stance already has created strong skeptics in progressive circles in Alabama, and is certain to irritate Siegelman supporters around the country if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. DOJ has requested that Fuller resentence Siegelman, now 64, to an additional 20 years in prison.

Brief in Full Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23440615/Siegelman-Case-Elena-Kagan-Reply-Brief

The case is about the "honest services fraud" laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
63. Ditto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
29.  Linda Monk updated her assessment with a thumb's down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merkins Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
33. Linda R. Monk: Kagan Not Qualifed For The Supreme Court
Sorry but the Woman you base your post on has come out after learning more about Kagan and stated Elena Kagan is Not Qualified for the Supreme Court.

Linda R. Monk writes:

Kagan has produced some evidence about her record that does give me serious doubts about her nomination. It was raised by Professor Guy-Uriel Charles of Duke Law School and highlighted by Greenwald:

Granting that we know very little about Kagan, what do we make of the facts that we do know? Here are some data that gives me pause about Kagan. When Elena Kagan was Dean of the Harvard Law School, she hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty members. But she did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian faculty member. Not one, not even a token. Of the 29 people she hired, all of them with one exception were white. Under Kagan's watch Harvard hired 28 white faculty members and one Asian American. . . .


But what about people of color? How could she have brokered a deal that permitted the hiring of conservatives but resulted in the hiring of white faculty? Moreover, of the 29 new hires, only six were women. So, she hired 23 white men, 5 white women, and one Asian American woman. Please do not tell me that there were not enough qualified women and people of color. That's a racist and sexist statement.

To me that ends the debate about Kagan's qualifications right there, especially for a Supreme Court that is supposed to protect the rights of disadvantaged groups. As I said in the comments section of Greenwald's article:

I remember lying on the floor of Dean Vorenberg's office in 1983--while he stepped over us in stocking feet--because the imbalance on hiring was so bad. I agree with Prof. Charles in his assessment that saying other candidates are "unqualified" merely amplifies the discrimination. Remember Larry Summers on women and math?? Lack of diversity in faculty hiring was the same issue that brought Barack Obama to the attention of his HLS classmates.


That a dean at HLS has this bad a record almost 30 years later is unreal, especially given the overall progress of women and other groups in the law. I didn't have these hiring statistics when I wrote my HuffPo article. Never let it be said of me that I can't change my mind based on evidence.

And that's where a civil debate can ultimately lead: new evidence that changes people's minds. No White House should be immune to that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-r-monk-jd/arguing-the-case-against_b_557227.html">Arguing the Case Against Elena Kagan: Nice Matters by Linda R. Monk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Well, I guess we all have our personal litmus tests.
This one I find a bit flimsy, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. Will Sen Specter and Sen Lincoln vote in favor? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
41. Thie line about Greenwald:
"He bases his attack on what he believes Kagan should have done rather than what she actually has done". - Tells the whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. As vapid as ever...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lillypaddle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
52. mediamatters.com
Has an excellent front page spread debunking myths & untruths about Ms. Kagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
55. "unite the Court in seminal decisions on divisive social issues"
Unity is only a good goal if the court is going to be unified in support of civil liberties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
61. K & R! for a solid report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
64. This is really interesting..the more I
read about Elena Kagan ..the more I excited I am about our future against the facism of the SC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC